ENFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Conservation Commission was called to order by Chairman LaPlante in the Enfield Room of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Tuesday, February 9, 2010. The meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m.
ROLL-CALL – Present were Commissioners Natalie George, Joanne Kneiss, Karen LaPlante, Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, and Kathleen Vose. Commissioners Michael Dynia, Richard Szewczak and Timothy McGuire were absent. Alternate Joanne Kneiss was empowered to vote at this meeting. Also present was Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Planner.
PUBLIC INPUT
There were no public comments
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner George, seconded by Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall to accept the minutes of the January 12, 2010 Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission. The vote was unanimous.
ENFIELD PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Discussion followed about the possibility of a “pre-meeting” before the Public Hearing for the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). Chairman LaPlante stated the POCD draft has already been forwarded to CRCOG for review. She pointed out any pre-meeting wouldn’t change that draft version, but changes can still be made.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated his belief the intent for the pre-meeting is to allow working out issues before the Public Hearing. He noted this would allow for a form of dialog that this Commission was not made part of, especially concerning many of the things that occurred early in the process with certain things being included in the POCD. He stated his impression that at the Council of Chairs meeting, Mayor Kaupin indicated any commissions or representatives who felt they hadn’t been properly included could be a part of that process and the Public Hearing could follow. He noted this could be verified with Mayor Kaupin.
A motion was made by Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall, seconded by Commissioner George to move Item #1 under items for discussion after Item #5.
FARMS & FARMLAND PRESERVATION
Commissioner Kneiss stated her belief Commissioner McGuire was to put some ideas together.
Commissioner George noted she brought in the mailing labels and gave them to Mr. Alsbaugh.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall stated she brought an open space map, which shows the southeastern corner of town. She noted she listed the property owners of the farms. She stated this material represents work she started a while ago and some of the information may have changed by now. Chairman LaPlante stated once this project is completed, perhaps they can get a separate layer designated as farmland on the GIS.
Chairman LaPlante noted Commissioner McGuire suggested there be a plan before the next farmers’ meeting.
It was decided to table this item in case Commissioner McGuire arrives later in the meeting.
ARBOR DAY
Commissioner George stated the Historic Commission indicated some of the trees in the historic district on Route 5 should be replaced. She questioned whether there’s a map showing what is state and private property. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they have state highway maps.
Commissioner George stated perhaps it would be easier if they could ask a private homeowner to water a tree if it was placed on private property, rather than having to go through the process with the state property. She pointed out a good place to plant a tree is in the area of the little store on Route 5. She noted another location would be north of the big Troiano home (Paul Robeson House) near the old cemetery. She stated her belief this location is state property. She pointed out a couple big trees were removed in this area.
Commissioner George stated perhaps the Historic Commission might like to provide some input about the placement of trees. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Historic Commission was talking about seedlings from historic trees, and they were considering the new species of elm trees. Commissioner George noted one of the new elm trees was planted on the corner of Hazard Avenue and North Street, however, it’s not doing very well.
Chairman LaPlante questioned the condition of the trees along the Hazard Avenue streetscape. Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall stated the maple trees in front of the cemetery don’t look very well because she believes too much material was mounded around the base.
The Commission reviewed some samples of trees in the tree sample book. (Thorn-less Honey Locust, Hop Hornbeam, etc. no final decisions made).
Chairman LaPlante suggested contacting the Cemetery Association to learn if they lost any trees over the past year, or whether they have a spot they would like to plant a specimen tree. She stated her belief they should plant something that’s going to be nice and big in the future .
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall stated it would be nice to get a landscape architect student to design a plan for Fermi High School and JFK Middle School. She noted perhaps students could plant the trees as a class project if there was some type of plan.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted they could come up with a recommendation to send to the schools. He added they can approach the Historic Commission about moving forward on the Historic District tree plan. He noted he can call the Cemetery Association to learn about their tree losses and where they’d like to place trees.
OSWA 2010
Chairman LaPlante questioned whether this has already come out, and Mr. Alsbaugh responded yes and noted this round has been announced and released. He noted they’re accepting applications.
Current Grant Status
Mr. Alsbaugh noted they got a letter from DEP representative Allison Clark noting a potential a time line for the open grant. The commission noted any possible recommendation this year should have a signed purchase agreement up front before submission. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will check with Dan to see if a letter has been sent. He stated his understanding the money can’t be applied to some other parcel.
NORTHEAST UNTILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION
Commissioner George made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kneiss to resubmit the application to Northeast Utilities. Submittal is due no later than April 15, 2010
The vote was unanimous, 5-0-0.
ENFIELD PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall referred to Page 35 and stated her belief there are conflicting items in this section since they’re talking about passive recreation and public access to the Connecticut River and the development of residential units near the Bigelow property. She pointed out that for the last two Plans of Conservation and Development, this area has always been targeted as open space acquisition. She noted the railroad tracks have cut off almost the entire waterfront from Parsons Road to Barnes Boat Launch and from Bigelow to the Northeast Utilities’s properties.
Commissioner George stated when the second rail is installed for the high-speed connector, they will fence both sides the whole length.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall referred to Page 36 and noted it states, “existing residential and commercial development in these areas will be allowed to continue, but they should not create barriers to the waterfront, interrupt public access or block views of the river.”
Mr. Alsbaugh stated a major policy goal from this Council is economic development, and this area has been targeted. He noted the whole census tract for Thompsonville was supposed to be a tiered zoning amendment to allow for the protection of the architecture and for allowance of business in areas already or historically designated for business. He noted the whole census tract is proposed as a waterfront mixed use. He stated that essentially negates any national registered district or place listings in that census tract.
Mr. Alsbaugh referred to the new parks and recreation open space plan and noted they don’t have a category for potential open space acquisition. He noted that category has been eliminated in Thompsonville and all over Enfield. He stated there’s no future open space planning on that POCD map.
Chairman LaPlante stated there are sections that talk about trails along the Connecticut River all the way from Massachusetts to East Windsor. She questioned how that can happen if the waterfront is developed. She noted even if they keep an open space area, what are the chances it will be useable and walkable half of the spring season because the trails will probably be in the flood zone and walking trails will probably wash away every spring.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall referred to Page 36 and the section on agriculture where it talks about comparing current zoning and proposed land uses. She noted there is mention of an overlay zone. Chairman LaPlante referred to Page 37 and noted they show the current zoning and number of acres and the future land use and the number of acres, and they don’t match.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall referred to Page 59 and read: “Establishing agricultural overlay districts could be an alternative for allowing agricultural uses and protecting agricultural land and residential and industrial zones. Priority areas for such districts should be the area southeast of the Scantic River and prime or important farmland soils overlapped by Connecticut DEP natural diversity areas.” She noted she is bothered by this because they’re just talking about the southeast corner.
Commissioner George stated many mandates require a great deal more consideration of their effect on the other sections of the plan before they’re implemented. Mr. Alsbaugh offered a paraphrase – recommendations are now mandates – mandates need more review and input from agencies and citizens. Commissioner George agreed adding, “particularly as each mandate effects the other mandates of the plan.” She added the connections have not been thoroughly considered.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall referred to Page 64 where it talks about the Thompsonville Fire Department (Policy 6.4 Ensure that public safety facilities have regular maintenance and capital improvements as needed to provide rapid response and safety staff; Acton 6.4.1 Complete the Thompsonville Fire Department relocation). She questioned the inclusion of this as this is a local tax district decision property, not town owned, and a district taxpayers’ decision. Chairman LaPlante noted this has nothing to do with the town. She stated her belief the only issue they’re talking about is the town should explore building re-use options. She added that’s still not a town issue until or if it becomes a town property and building. She pointed out the North Central Health District is a separate institution as well. The commission agreed that Action 6.4.1 should be removed from the Draft Plan.
The commission also agreed that Action 5.3.3 on Pg. 61 should be carefully observed to ensure it is not used to substitute private agendas for fully vetted past and present recommendations. This section creates mandates over recommendations.
Commissioner George stated they were supposed to do the following:
· Implement the Mancuso Park Plan
· Acquire land and easements along Freshwater Brook for trail development
· Promote public access along the Connecticut River
· Identify and construct key scenic overlooks
· Revise the open space donation standards
· Educate residents about riparian buffers
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall pointed out if they had to use this POCD every time they went before Wetlands or Zoning to argue points, someone could find a paragraph in this document saying the exact opposite.
Commissioner Kneiss referred to the Urban and Community Forests of New England and noted this document refers to three areas within the Town of Enfield that were selected and that are mapped. She explained it is based on population and the some of the things Enfield should be concerned about as a “green” community. She noted the document talks about impervious surface. She stated Enfield is in a category of urban land, and Enfield ranking within the survey is not at a desirable percentage. She noted they should be looking at the reduction of impervious surface. She recommended looking at this document more closely and trying to get this incorporated into the POCD.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall stated her belief the whole problem with Thompsonville is that there are too many rental properties and not enough owner-occupied properties.
Chairman LaPlante referred to the tables on Page 38 where it states waterfront mixed use and 14 acres are available with maximum residential units of 100. She pointed out on Page 35 it says 425 units can be fit along the waterfront mixed use. She noted these are conflicting numbers that need to be corrected. It was noted the potential for residential units in the mall area is less than half of what Thompsonville is supposed to be able to accommodate. It was agreed this logic is skewed.
Chairman LaPlante referred to Page 58, Action 4-5-7, Central Park, and stated her belief there’s no chance this will happen in the next ten years. She agreed it’s a nice idea.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall pointed out there used to be access between the malls, but because a crime was committed in this area, mall security won’t allow access through this area. She stated there is talk about connectivity between the malls.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall referred to Page 54 where there’s mention about Silvio Conte and Enfield having two focus areas that are significant to the mission of the refuge. Chairman LaPlante stated she couldn’t find the plan on that website, and she e-mailed a person asking if he’d be interested in reviewing this POCD since Enfield is in the Silvio Conte area. She informed him there’s a proposal for the development of an Intermodal Transit Center along the river. She stated his response was that this would be looked into to see if this will endanger the habitat.
Chairman LaPlante referred to Page 63 of the 1999 POCD where it reads: “The community survey response voiced an overwhelming desire for the Town to set aside more open space for recreation throughout town and particularly along the Connecticut River and Scantic River. Recreation facilities are considered insufficient in the areas of walking trails, bikeways, riverfront recreation, playgrounds and picnic areas. There was also some interest expressed in additional swimming facilities.” Chairman LaPlante stated that information hasn’t changed, and people are still asking for basically the same thing.
Chairman LaPlante stated Page 69 of the 1999 POCD states, “In fact, community survey responses were strongest for acquisition of additional open space and informal type recreation areas, walking trails and bikeways.” The statistics were as follows: 83.2% for walking trails and bikeways; 75.7% for riverfront recreation; 70.6% for play and picnic areas. Chairman LaPlante read on: “To the greatest extent possible, such open space should protect significant natural features and be linked to open space belts or systems. The extensive river and stream system in Enfield provides a logical framework for organizing such an open space system in a manner to create activity centers and neighborhood linkages by locking routes and bike trails.”
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall stated in 1987, 93% of the people thought that protecting/acquiring open space was a good idea with lands along the Connecticut River and Scantic River. She noted there was an evenly divided response for and against paying for acquiring open space with a small tax increase.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated observations on the 1987 and 1999 POCD consistencies are valid.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall stated her belief if this is put together, the public will be behind the points being made since they’re basically saying what the public has been saying all along.
Commissioner Kneiss stated the cost of open space is next to nothing compared to developing housing and bringing 500 units into town. She noted additional housing has an associated cost with education, town service, transportation, sewer systems, water delivery, etc. She stated her belief there should be a cost benefit analysis before moving forward.
Commissioner Vose pointed out open space and recreation facilities, active and passive, raises property values for the town. Commissioner George referred to the rankings of the towns in CT Magazine, and noted those towns with higher property values have nice parks.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner George to go into Executive Session to discuss real estate matters. The vote was unanimous.
Chairman LaPlante reconvened the meeting at 9:50 and stated no decisions or votes were taken during Executive Session.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman LaPlante referred to the correspondence provided by Mr. Alsbaugh regarding the South Maple Street Bridge. She questioned if they’re going to be careful with the culvert and whether there was anything within the bid about the recommendations. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he hasn’t seen the bid documents. He assumed that report was part of the process that they would have to follow. He pointed out they have to make sure that a couple sensitive areas are checked.
Commissioner Kneiss stated the next time they discuss goals, perhaps they can address the tree inventory. She noted when she spoke with someone about using GIS mapping, she was told the best time is not when the trees are in full leaf because they can’t get a good reading from satellites, therefore, it would be better to do the survey in fall or winter.
SUBDIVISION/DEVELOPMENT REFERRALS FROM PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Enfield Properties, Residential & Commercial Development on South Road & an Update from Inland/Wetlands
Commissioner George stated the Commission had the maps on their e-mail for this particular property. She noted she did attend the first public hearing. She stated one of the residential developments for elderly housing is at the end of Barnett Street. She noted that will be gated off, and it will be only an emergency exit. She pointed out the entrance to this proposed development is through proposed commercial property on South Road. She stated the fire department and various departments in town have a problem accessing the residential property through commercial property. She stated if the proposed commercial development doesn’t happen, then the parking lot related to the commercial development won’t happen. She noted that property is all drained by underground reservoirs. She questioned if the commercial parking isn’t developed, then can the proposed residential development be accessed. She stated her belief this is an incomplete submission because the plans don’t show what is going to be built as access to the rear property, and what drainage structures would be needed just for a road.
Commissioner George stated there are erosion controls built into this plan, including the underground storage of surface water for a parking lot. She noted there are no engineered plans for just a road. She stated the parking lot would be built when the need for the commercial buildings exist. She noted she has lots of questions regarding erosion control measures. She pointed out they’re using erosion control mats and they’re tacking them in against blacktop. She questioned whether the expansion/contraction rate of those mats is amenable to the blacktop, or will they pull out if they’re all along the edge of the road. She stated her belief there are wetland issues, and there are issues with the number of residential units being built in proximity to the unstable soils. She acknowledged there are other issues that are not Conservation Commission issues.
Mr. Alsbaugh questioned if the drainage from the back is connected to the capacity of those items raised by Commissioner George. Commissioner George responded no, the drainage in the back is totally contained in the water basins.
It was agreed there should be a memo statement from the Conservation Commission to the Wetlands Commission concerning the need for an engineered access roadway with drainage and where the drainage would go. Commissioner George expressed her willingness to attend a meeting and read this statement into the record.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kneiss to adjourn. The vote was unanimous, and the meeting stood adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall
Secretary |